Logo

In Defense of Gay Marriage - Homosexuality a Choice?

Comments

Avatar TamTam1
17 Sep 2013 21:08
Yes. YES. This is right. Awesome blog, dude.
Avatar s.lee.f
17 Aug 2013 13:59
sometimes you dont feel it. maybe people are more attracted to the same sex so they choose.
Avatar Cappuccino
17 Aug 2013 23:05
In reply to s.lee.f
I would agree
Avatar Cappuccino
17 Aug 2013 09:18
Love is love. I believe it's a choice
Avatar LaZerWoLF
17 Aug 2013 07:01
This blog was way too complicated for a small brain to handle. I'm sorry, Skittles, I tried, but I could only make it past the first paragraph.

However, I 100% support homosexuality. Anyone who says otherwise needs to shut up. We need to realize that LOVE IS LOVE REGARDLESS OF THE WAY YOU LOOK AT IT. That is all. Nice blog.<3
Avatar bloodofgore
15 Aug 2013 06:00
What if someone thinks they hate something, then realizes they actually like it? Isn't that changing your preference?
Avatar Skittles
15 Aug 2013 23:06
In reply to bloodofgore
Realizing you like something you didn't think you liked is just about knowledge. I didn't think I like shrimp until I tried it. I didn't change my preference, only what I knew about that preference.
Avatar Kin no Kokoro
14 Aug 2013 19:38
Honest Question.

Would people hate me if I regard Homosexuality as a developmental/psychological disorder that needs treatment (like autism or otherwise) that isn't normal and that shouldn't be treated as something acceptable?

Basically like we treat people with the type of Turrets Syndrome where they spout profanities all the time.
Avatar Skittles
15 Aug 2013 23:04
In reply to Kin no Kokoro
To be frank, that's a somewhat... stupid idea which - as far as I know - has no real backing. And given homosexuality's prevalence throughout thousands of other species, calling it not 'normal' (which by definition is a subjective and highly limited term) is just untrue. And that also begs the question of why it would need treatment in the first place, seeing as it puts no one else at inherent risk (given protected sex).
Avatar Kin no Kokoro
16 Aug 2013 09:16
In reply to Skittles
So you're saying its not a developmental/psychological disorder?
Avatar Skittles
16 Aug 2013 13:48
In reply to Kin no Kokoro
I said that I know of no evidence indicating that and that even if it was, there is nothing about homosexuality that has any danger to other people (other than unprotected sex, but that's true with heterosexuals too).
Avatar Kin no Kokoro
16 Aug 2013 17:53
In reply to Skittles
You do realize that everything you just said can be said about autism, right?

Now back to my original question. which I havent gotten an answer to yet. Would people HATE me if I had that viewpoint I described in my first comment on homosexuality?
Avatar Skittles
16 Aug 2013 20:28
In reply to Kin no Kokoro
But furthermore, there is a large amount of evidence that homosexuality is not linked to either developmental or psychological issues or disorders. So it's not just absense of evidence for your view, it's that there's evidence against that view.
Avatar Skittles
16 Aug 2013 20:22
In reply to Kin no Kokoro
Except autism can (and often does) either put the person at risk, either with respect to their own health due to some of the effects of being autistic or to their ability to function in society. The same can not be said of homosexuals, hence talking about "treating" them will inherently come off as discrimination.

I wouldn't hate you, but I would both disagree and find it absurd, unsupported and irrelevant even if it weren't those first two things. Especially considering it's a preference, which as I get into in the blog is innate, and there aren't any known correlative factors showing homosexuality to be a developmental or psychological disorder like there is with autism.
Avatar Kin no Kokoro
17 Aug 2013 07:59
In reply to Skittles
You know, the main determinant of gender is what sex hormones are produced during development as a fetus, and not what sex *CHROMOSOMES (XX or XY) the person has.

Most annoying mistake.
Avatar Skittles
17 Aug 2013 19:30
In reply to Kin no Kokoro
Er, what does that have to do with anything I said?
Avatar Kin no Kokoro
17 Aug 2013 07:55
In reply to Skittles
I'm pretty convinced homosexuality is caused in the womb or at an early age by a hormonal imbalance making the limbic system develop as if it were for the opposite gender.

You know, the main determinant of gender is what sex hormones are produced during development as a fetus, and not what sex hormones (XX or XY) the person has.

My theory is that if the person is exposed to the opposite hormones early on we get XX Males or XY Females (which are a thing: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/XY_gonadal_dysgenesis)

and if they're exposed to them later on we get homosexuality, where the only thing of the opposite gender about them is there limbic system/sexual preference.

Now can you honestly say that my theory isnt even remotely possible and that you're not just saying that because the moment I started talking against homosexuality you labelled me as a bigot or someone who's opinions are clouded by his irrational fear or hate of homosexuality or because his religion brainwashed him or something?
Avatar Skittles
17 Aug 2013 19:41
In reply to Kin no Kokoro
I'm aware of that. The problem is that there is no [known] link between your gender (and what you actually mean is your sex; gender is not the same as one's sex) and what kind of person you will be attracted to. Otherwise there couldn't be both homosexuals and heterosexuals in the first place.

Actually, the problem is, as I've brought up a few times, that your idea is both unsubstantiated (evidence-wise) and there is evidence that has already more-or-less nixed the idea that homosexuality is either a developmental or psychological 'issue' like you've suggested. Again, if you can actually bring up some inherent problem with one's ability to function in society because one is a homosexual then you might begin to have something to work with. But when I've asked you this you haven't seemed to respond to that.

So while I haven't said or implied that you're a bigot, you seem to have a problem with homosexuality if you think that - supposing your idea is correct - that it should therefore be 'cured' without specifying (like I've asked) what about homosexuality necessitates it should be 'cured' even if there were currently evidence for that view.
Avatar LaZerWoLF
17 Aug 2013 07:04
In reply to Skittles
I had/have autism. Not a good experience, but hey, it didn't kill me. Not like it would, but yeah. Lol.
Avatar fordcars
14 Aug 2013 02:07
I am nearly happy to read the debate, because even if some have completely diffrent thoughts, you just want to defend what you beleive. But I just want to clarify that being gay or lesbian is biological (I think)! It is not a choice (I think).
Avatar Narwhal-San
13 Aug 2013 06:22
You can have a same sex life partner.
You can even marry them and... 'stuff'.
But they aren't your mate. A male and a female is needed to create a child. No matter what.

Not a man and a man,
Not a woman and a woman,
A man and a woman. That is natural law.

By no means am I religious, though. Don't misinterpret me. I believe same sex couples are the best parents.
Avatar Skittles
15 Aug 2013 23:00
In reply to Narwhal-San
'Man & woman' isn't a natural law, it's just how some beings reproduce. Some species of frog can be either sex and still reproduce. Microbial life reproduces and yet has no sex at all. And there are literally thousands of other species (from seahorses to gorillas) that practice homosexuality, so clearly given that social species do other things than procreate it can't be said to be 'unnatural' as some put it (as if that were a problem even if it were).
Avatar inSein
13 Aug 2013 20:08
In reply to Narwhal-San
Children kinda suck anyway. We really don't need more children. We've too many.
Avatar LinkZelda
13 Aug 2013 07:59
In reply to Narwhal-San
While that is true, a gay marriage is a way to emulate a heterosexual marriage. It may not be natural but gay people have several options for raising children. I agree that gay people aren't each others "mates" but religiously speaking, this is a 'way' to raise a christian family.
Avatar inSein
13 Aug 2013 04:10
I don't understand how this is still a freaking problem.

Well, I do. It's religion's fault. Religion gives people a reason, a pass to be irrational. As do emotions and such.


Personally I vote for marriage as a whole to stop existing. And the ability to have children be cut out. Perfection.

Anyway, homophobia is the new racism, except racism still exists too. Sucks.
Avatar Bob7man
12 Aug 2013 02:35
I choose to belive the Bible. Homsexualitiy in its self isnt wrong, but a felling. We all have fellings. Acting upon those fellings though, can lead to bad things.

If you had the felling that you didnt like someon thats not nessearly wrong, but if you were to commit murder that it would be.

Dont get me wro g when i say this though. I dont hate you for what you belive. I just do t agree. Just because we dont agree dosent mean we can have a nice talk about something.
Avatar Skittles
12 Aug 2013 02:43
In reply to Bob7man
I didn't really want to get much into the religious side, but to claim to believe the Bible in this instant is to be inconsistent. Otherwise, you'd have to believe that the moral thing to do is, as Leviticus instructs explicitly, stone to death homosexual men, "for they have done what is abominable".

I don't really get what you're saying. You seem to say "Being gay isn't immoral, but it will lead you to do immoral things." I hope that's not what you're saying, because that's a slippery slope argument. :O

I'm fine with disagreement, but I find the discussion valuable enough to have.
Avatar HullBreach
12 Aug 2013 11:10
In reply to Skittles
Leviticus was written to be the laws governing a specific group of people at a specific time. Without understanding their culture, their environment, their diseases, and other factors, quotes are being used out-of-context. Deuteronomy 8:22 instructs the Israelites to build a fence around their house's roofs so that sleeping visitors don't roll off in their sleep an die. By your logic of ancient Israelite law's relevance to today, your family is probably sinning at this very moment! A better place to look would be the Pauline epistles, since much of what they say apply the the entire world (except when Paul says otherwise). Leviticus may apply to modern Jews, so it is worth asking them, but it does not apply to Christians, aside from an interesting historical document on how the ancient tribes of Israel lived their lives.
Avatar Skittles
12 Aug 2013 18:22
In reply to HullBreach
The actual problem is that people only haphazardly apply that to places when they feel like it. I could do as you did but with regard to Jesus' usage of the Golden Ruke. And in fact, there have been good arguments put forward that the Golden Rule mightn't be as good as it seems on the surface.
In addition, does Jesus not specifically state that he has not come to destroy the Law, but fulfill it, and that the Law would not disappear until heaven and earth were gone?
Avatar HullBreach
12 Aug 2013 19:23
In reply to Skittles
One of the teachers of the law came and heard them debating. Noticing that Jesus had given them a good answer, he asked him, “Of all the commandments, which is the most important?” “The most important one,” answered Jesus, “is this: ‘Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God, the Lord is one. Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength.’ The second is this: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’ There is no commandment greater than these.” (Mark 12:28-31 NIV)

Jesus referenced Deuteronomy 6:4-5 and Leviticus 19:18 here. I hope that answers the questions.
Avatar Skittles
12 Aug 2013 22:41
In reply to HullBreach
This'll be my last religious-related response (I didn't really want to get into it. ). That doesn't seem to dispute what I said. He does indeed say that those are the most important of the commandments, but he doesn't say that the others are null.
Avatar HullBreach
13 Aug 2013 01:55
In reply to Skittles
If you don't want to get into religion, why did you bring up homosexuality? The religious argument is a major component of the contemporary debate. Your blog actually mentioned marriage, which has historically been a religious sacrament and institution - before government pushed into it in the past century to divide the populace and gain power.

If you are really curious as to what Christianity says about homosexuality, I am more than willing to share anything right from Scripture. Unlike many Christians, I base any and all responses on Scripture and will not force my beliefs onto others. To paraphrase Jesus, knock and I will answer. If you are not interested, I have provided the proverbial mustard seed and will step back to let the debates continue among the other members in this blog.
Avatar Skittles
13 Aug 2013 03:31
In reply to HullBreach
Because unfortunately the last time I brought up religion as a topic it didn't go well where civility is concerned. Furthermore, the religious component of the debate (the majority of which from that perspective is against it) adds more or less nothing, save for quoting the Bible. And as I mentioned in a previous post, more or less every Christian will only do so at their own preference and generally ad hoc excuses as to why they only do so selectively or why scriptural commands that once held (and were never voided) no longer apply.


No no no. Historically, marriage has been a social and political tool throughout most of histpry, with the religious aspect (not just in Christian or Jewish societies, which didn't even invent marriage) taking a backseat somewhat. Peace treaty with another tribe or nation-state? Marrying off your (likely virgin) daughter quite likely. A family in medieval times want to ride the coattails of a family that is rising in power? Try and get connected to them by marrying into the family, provided you're close enough in social status. Even today, you're going to be fibbing if you say that people [in Western nations] are getting married for predominantly (or even any) religious reasons, rather than because they're in love. Come on man.


Oh I'm interested, I just didn't want this to get out of hand like before. And with regards to Scripture's explicit condemnation of homosexual males, I never really got a response on how Leviticus' command to stone them to death was ended.
Avatar Bob7man
12 Aug 2013 03:04
In reply to Skittles
“Whoever takes a human life shall surely be put to death." Laviticus 24:17
We dont kill every person who has commited murder, but its still wrong. Things have changed between the old and new testimate. That dosent mean things it said were wrong are now good just because there not put to death.

And i was saing emotions are not sin. Thats us. We can change emotions. Acting upon an emotion however can be sinful depending on what it is.
Avatar Samurai Bob
11 Aug 2013 23:58
I changed my preferences in the settings bar.
Avatar Skittles
12 Aug 2013 02:33
In reply to Samurai Bob
Lol, nice try. ;)
Avatar Samurai Bob
12 Aug 2013 02:54
In reply to Skittles
I can also change my screensaver. Bubbles, yo.
Avatar Asparagus
11 Aug 2013 22:40
You can change your preferences if you work at it.
Avatar Skittles
11 Aug 2013 22:44
In reply to Asparagus
Er, no. The only thing you could do is get used to doing something, not prefer it. No matter how many times I eat a food I don't prefer I'll never end up preferring it. All that could happen is I could inundate myself to it. Whether or not you like something isn't within your control, only whether you act on that preference is.
Avatar Asparagus
11 Aug 2013 23:16
In reply to Skittles
Maybe that's just you though.
And maybe it's just me, but I'm pretty sure most people can decide they like something. Or don't.
I can choose whether I prefer pink or I can choose whether I like green. I can go ahead and dislike both of them. I could like both of them, too.

It's just a thing. A person can absolutely choose their preference. I'm not saying they can choose whether they're homosexual or not, I'm just saying you're completely wrong when it comes to people not being able to choose their preferences.

Food is a bad example, as well. Taste buds change over time. If someone doesn't like something now, they could totally enjoy it in the future.
Avatar Skittles
12 Aug 2013 02:09
In reply to Asparagus
No, you're misunderstanding. I corrected this view a couple of times, including the quote at the end. A preference is, at base, something you like. What you like isn't chosen. However, what you do isn't constrained by a single preference. You choosing pink over green isn't choosing to prefer pink or green, it's discovering either which you prefer more or which to wear, not whether or not they're preferred to some degree in the first place. This isn't just about me, it's by nature what a preference. You don't choose whether you have a preference for something, at best those preferences compete.

Choosing to do something is entirely preference driven. The variability comes due to competing preferences, in addition to circumstances. You do not choose them.


Food is a GREAT example, and you just demonstrated without realizing it. If people's preferences for foods change over time due to alterations of their taste buds, that by necessity means they did not choose what foods they preferred.
You're misunderstanding my point. I didn't say that certain kinds of preferences cannot change over time, what I said is that there is no choice in what you prefer, and your taste bud example demonstrates that perfectly. Preference are outside your control.
Avatar HullBreach
12 Aug 2013 02:20
In reply to Skittles
I chose to not eat starchy foods, because they are unhealthy. This was after years of living an unhealthy life style. Over time, I starting liking the healthier alternatives and actually choose them now as my food preference.

Does that demonstrate the opposite of your point?
Avatar Skittles
12 Aug 2013 02:29
In reply to HullBreach
No and it's pretty simple. You liked starchy foods I assume, i.e it was a preference of yours to eat it. However, you have a competing preference - staying healthy, and that's the preference that won out for you. You never chose to prefer a healthy lifestyle, rather it was a preference that itself was among other basal preferences (living longer, being more mobile).

The post you responded to already covers the fact that people have competing preferences. :_
Avatar HullBreach
11 Aug 2013 22:28
It sounds like your blog is trying to prove that homosexuality is either a choice or a medical abnormality. That seem fairly simplified, because a choice has moral implications, and a medical condition can have a cure. There's much more to it than that.
Avatar Skittles
12 Aug 2013 02:36
In reply to HullBreach
*innate
Avatar Skittles
12 Aug 2013 02:33
In reply to HullBreach
To be a bit more clear, I'm saying that I'm not arguing that homosexuality can't be biologically explained; I'm arguing that it's innane, i.e not chosen. In addition to choice being an irrelevant factor.
Avatar Skittles
11 Aug 2013 22:46
In reply to HullBreach
And pray tell, what moral implications does homosexuality of consenting adults have?
Avatar HullBreach
11 Aug 2013 23:09
In reply to Skittles
It would seem that the contemporary debate on homosexual marriage as a civil right is one such implication. If morals were not part of the picture, then there would be no debate.

Likewise, if it all concerned just a medical side (through epigenetics, hormonal imbalances, or whatever), then a "cure" would be more of a mainstream investigation.

I would tend to believe that the truth in the matter is that the answer lies somewhere between the two.
Avatar Skittles
12 Aug 2013 02:25
In reply to HullBreach
You misunderstood. I asked what about homosexuality in fact has moral implications (you seemed to imply allowed it has negative moral consequences), not whether or not people (usually against it) merely claim it has immoral consequences. People who are against gay marriage tend to trump up that it is immoral, but rarely - if ever - specify why. And the same with people who argued against interracial marriage, they tend to just try to say that because they don't like seeing it, it's 'unnatural'.

What has indicated that it wasn't a result of anything but those (or other) factors? Whether or not a preference - which my blog demonstrates are outside one's control - can be explained does nothing to say that it is chosen. Also, you're not (I hope) saying homosexuality needs to be 'cured' are you?

Avatar Skittles
11 Aug 2013 22:39
In reply to HullBreach
My blog does no such thing. If you re-read it, you'll see it layed out and repeated that I'm demonstrating that homosexuality is a prefernce, which by definition and necessity means it cannot be chosen, and I layed out arguments supporting that. It has nothing to do with being a medical condition.
Avatar Astra Moon
11 Aug 2013 22:23
I LOVE this. You just stated fact & discredited all the "it's chosen' crap, in 1 blog.
Course, haters will attempt to challenge it.
Home
Nintendo 3DS is ™ Nintendo Co. Ltd. This website is ©2009-2019 HullBreach Studios. All rights reserved. Members are responsible for their own content. No account information will be given to third-parties without your consent.